West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/50/2016

A.B.S. Group Proprietor - Complainant(s)

Versus

JIT'S Courier Services - Opp.Party(s)

Sarbeswar Nayak

23 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President

and

 Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

   

Complaint Case No. 50/2016

                                                       

             A,B,S. Group Proprietor, Sukesh Maity, S/o Mritunjoy Maity, At Chotobazar, Opposite V.C. Bank at Medinipur Town, P.O.                       Medinipur, P.S. Kotwali, Dist.-  Paschim Medinipur.…………..….……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

1. JIT’s Courier Services, Noticed to be served Dipak Chabri Manager,  JIT’s

Courier Services, At Manikpur, P.O. Medinipur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur,

2. JIT’s Courier Services, Head Office, Mercantile Building, 2^nd floor, “B” Block,

  9/12, Lalbazar Street, Kolkata-700001. ..………...........…..Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Sarbeswar Nayak, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Somasis Ponda, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -23/08/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant is an unemployed youth and he is the distributor of Vivo Mobile phone named and styled as A.B.S. Group.  Vivo Mobile Company sent various mobile sets along with seven numbers of Demo Mobile (Y27L) being nos. 8678566029344394, 867856029349377, 867856029338438, 867856029343594, 867856029357891, 867856029338198, 867856029344170 to the complainant for demonstration.  After demonstration, the complainant sent those seven Demo Mobile phones in a sealed packaged to Mr. Mithu Prasad, Vivo Communication Device Pvt. Ltd., Merlin Infinite DN-51, Room no.805, Sector–V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata 700091 through JIT’s Courier

Contd…………………P/2

 

 

( 2 )

Service i.e. opposite party no.1 on 13/01/2016 and the opposite party no.1 also received Rs.100/-  from the complainant towards courier service charge. Since the said sealed package was not received by the addressee so the complainant submitted a written complaint on 2/02/2016 in the office of opposite party no.1 and thereafter opposite party no.1 sent a letter on 08/02/2016 to the complainant stating that the said sealed package has been lost.  It is stated that the value of those seven mobile sets is Rs.86,100/-.  It is further stated by the complainant that due to gross negligence of opposite party no.1, said package has been lost and such type of act amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No-1.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.86,100/- with interest an award of harassment cost of Rs.10,000/-.

                  Opposite party no.2 duly received registered notice of this case but he did not appear to contest this case and as such the case was ordered to be heard ex parte against the opposite party no.2.

                Opposite party no.1 has contested this case by filing a written objection.   

                Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party no.2 that the opposite party no.1is the Area Manager of JIT’s Courier with a limit to delivery of articles as per his capacity as Area Manager under the head office of JIT’s Courier Service and accordingly he performs such act as an Area Manager in Medinipur Town.  Being an Area Manager, he booked the aforesaid article of the complainant on receiving Rs.100/- as delivery charge and he personally delivered the said booking article being cong no.8304 dated 13/01/2016 alongwith other consignment articles to the distributor of JIT’s Courier Service at Mechada on 14/01/2016.  It is stated that according to business customs and Courier and Telegraphic Act, the booking office is only authorized to receive the articles on basis of weight and they are not authorized to ask about the description of the booked article and so there is no question of knowing  about  the details of articles which is sent to the sender in sealed packet and therefore he does not know as to what was sent by the complainant to the addressee and he has also no knowledge about the value of those articles.  After receiving intimation about  non-delivery of the item of the complainant, opposite party no.1 made contact with the head office as well as the distributor’s office at Mecheda and he also advised the complainant to make contact with the office of distributor at Mecheda as well as head office but the complainant did not take care about it.  As a booking office of JIT’s Courier Services, opposite party no.1 being the Area Manager, delivered the cong no.8304 of the complainant within his limit of business area to the distributor of JIT’s Courier Service and

Contd…………………P/3

 

 

( 3 )

so there is no deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party no.1 and therefore  the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                                                                 Point for decision

1. Is the case is maintainable in it’s present form and prayer ?
2. Is the complainant is a consumer under the provision of C.P. Act ?
3. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ?
4. Is the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ? 

      In this case, neither the complainant nor the opposite party adduced any evidence either oral or documentary but they have relied upon some documents, so filed by them. 

Decision with reasons

For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

From the respective cases of the parties, it appears that admittedly opposite party no.1 is the Area Manager of JIT’s Courier Services and he received a sealed package from the complainant on 13/01/2016 for sending the said package through it’s courier service and he also received Rs.100/- from the complainant as courier service charge.  According to the complainant in that sealed package there were seven numbers of Demo Mobile set of Vivo Mobile Company valued at Rs.86,100/-. In his written objection, opposite party no.1 has stated that he is no knowledge about the articles of that sealed package and the value thereof.  Opposite party no.1 has not specifically denied about the contents of that package and the value of the article.  According to the opposite party no.1, he being the Area Manager of JIT’s Courier Services, delivered the said consignment no.8304 of the complainant to the distributor of JIT’s Courier Service at Mecheda and therefore he has no deficiency in service.  Opposite party no.1 does not state that the said consignment no.8304 of the complainant was delivered to the addressee.  It is the settled law that the courier service is duty  bound to make delivery of articles in time.  Here in this case, we find that although the opposite party no.1 being the Area Manager of JIT’s Courier Service received the said consignment of sealed package from the complainant after receiving Rs.100/- as courier charge, so he cannot avoid his liability regarding non delivery of that article by saying that he delivered the said article to their distributor at Mecheda.  It is nobody’s case that the  said consignment has been delivered to addressee.  By filing the present complaint, supported by affidavit, the complainant has stated that the value of those seven Demo Mobile sets is Rs.86,100/-  and the said sealed package has not been delivered to the addressee.  Since the

Contd…………………P/4

 

( 4 )

opposite party no.1 has admitted that he received the said package after receiving proper service charge for delivery of the same through it’s courier to the addressee and since it appears that the said article has not been delivered to the addressee, so it is held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1 and the complainant, being a consumer, is therefore entitled to get the relief’s as prayed for.

                                                           Hence, it is,

                                                                              Ordered,

                                                that the complaint case no.50/2016  is allowed on contest with cost against O.P. No.1 and dismissed ex parte against opposite party no.2. Opposite party no.1 is directed to pay Rs.86,100/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the complaint till payment and he is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as harassment cost to the complainant.  All such payment shall be made within a month from this date of order.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

 

         Dictated and Corrected by me

                  Sd/-B. Pramanik.                  Sd/- D. Sengupta.              Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                       President                                 Member                            President

                                                                                                            District Forum

                                                                                                       Paschim Medinipur